Ben Collins writes:
> Can you explain to me what "parts" of the kernel can or cannot allow
> "closed source" modules? Even the way the system is setup now, any
> developer can create a module, and distribute it in compiled form without
> source code. I'm not sure how Linus could or couldn't prevent
Can you explain to me what "parts" of the kernel can or cannot allow
"closed source" modules? Even the way the system is setup now, any
developer can create a module, and distribute it in compiled form without
source code. I'm not sure how Linus could or couldn't prevent it, unless
On Tue, Oct 13, 1998 at 01:45:04PM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> These commercial sound drivers are a real hassle, since the user must
[valid complaints and security issues elided]
> good hardware support is to Linux's success, I don't consider binary-only
> support good support at
Matthew Parry writes:
> Why give them the option to release closed source when we can force them
> to release free versions?
I don't believe we can.
--
John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Do with it what you will.
Dancing Horse Hill
Matthew Parry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As Linux becomes more popular the hardware manufacturers will start
> giving away drivers with the hardware, as they do for WIN95/NT/Mac. If
> we give them the option to release the drivers as closed source then
> most of them will. But if we force them to
On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 09:06:32PM +1000, Matthew Parry wrote:
> As Linux becomes more popular the hardware manufacturers will start
> giving away drivers with the hardware, as they do for WIN95/NT/Mac.
> If we give them the option to release the drivers as closed source
> then most of them will.
On 17-Oct-98, 08:33 (CDT), Christian Hammers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 09:06:32PM +1000, Matthew Parry wrote:
>> [forcing manufacturers to release device drivers as free software]
> Maybe somewhen this will happen, but during the next few years, the
> hardware manufact
Matthew Parry wrote:
>
> I think a much more important implication of the KDE debacle is
> what problems the GPL might make now that Linus is allowing
> proprietary drivers to be loaded into the kernel. Isn't this
> effectively the same as linking against a library?
Err.
a) The free kernel li
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 13:00:52 +0200
From: Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Matthew Parry wrote:
>
> I think a much more important implication of the KDE debacle is
> what problems t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Can you explain to me what "parts" of the kernel can or cannot allow
"closed source" modules? Even the way the system is setup now, any
developer can create a module, and distribute it in compiled form without
source code. I'm not sure how Linus could or couldn't
On Tue, Oct 13, 1998 at 01:00:52PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
>
> This won't be the case for regular machines. It might be the
> case for boxes that use crappy hardware where the manufacturer
> holds back the specs and doesn't allow development of free
> drivers.
>
I can picture manufacturers
If the day ever comes that some hardware maker decides to write his
own driver for Linux (say a maker of a win-modem decided to write a
linux driver and throw the disk in the box) but did NOT license under
the GPL, choosing to keep it propritory would that be so bad?
As long as such software came
On Tue, Oct 13, 1998 at 09:51:11AM -0700, Kenneth Scharf wrote:
> As long as such software came with the hardware, I can see no
> difference between that, and buying a copy of Wordperfect for Linux.
> We already have commerical X servers and sound drivers available which
> are NOT licensed under t
---Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Although I recognise how important
> good hardware support is to Linux's success, I don't >consider
binary-only
> support good support at all. I'd hate to be stuck in >Company X's
position.
> I'm sure you'd feel the same way if it was your >business o
On Tue, Oct 13, 1998 at 01:45:04PM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> These commercial sound drivers are a real hassle, since the user must
[valid complaints and security issues elided]
> good hardware support is to Linux's success, I don't consider binary-only
> support good support
On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 08:53:54PM +1000, Matthew Parry wrote:
> As Linux becomes more popular the hardware manufacturers will start
> giving away drivers with the hardware, as they do for WIN95/NT/Mac.
> If we give them the option to release the drivers as closed source
> then most of them will.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Brian Ristuccia
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Unfortunately, this new security fix breaks the binary-only gigabit ethernet
>driver.
That's what stable kernel interfaces are for. Actually I don't recall
_any_ change in a stable kernel that broke any kernel-interface.
On Tue, Oct 13, 1998 at 09:51:11AM -0700, Kenneth Scharf wrote:
> If the day ever comes that some hardware maker decides to write his
> own driver for Linux (say a maker of a win-modem decided to write a
> linux driver and throw the disk in the box) but did NOT license under
> the GPL, choosing to
18 matches
Mail list logo
